This year the two Korean states are celebrating their 60th anniversary. Established respectively in August and September 1948 the Republic of Korea (ROK or South Korea) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) both have covered a long and winding road of struggle for recognition, survival and prosperity. With different degrees of success, both states have entered the 21st century of Globalization but still refuse to recognise each other. Ideological confrontation between the East and the West, which sparked a civil conflict in Korea, continues to dominate inter-Korean politics now and effectively prevents the prospect for reconciliation and peaceful unification.

All these years Australia has been one of the countries intimately involved in political developments on the Korean peninsula. As part of the West, Australia was closer to the ROK and even fought on its side during the Korean War (1950-1953). Active economic, cultural, and human exchange continued cementing the firm alliance between South Korea and Australia. These days the ROK is Australia’s third largest trading partner; South Koreans visiting Australia reach hundreds of thousands every year; academic and language exchange is on the rise. This year both countries decided to start the process leading to the Free Trade Agreement, which will fully open their domestic markets to each other.

On the contrary, relations between Australia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea), have been one of the oddest and most chequered in diplomatic history. Australia was prominently represented in the UN Temporary Commission for Korea in 1947 and contributed to the creation of two hostile states on the peninsula. A short period of mutual recognition and cultural cooperation with the DPRK took place in the mid-1970s but was suddenly and mysteriously broken off. In May 2000, encouraged by the improved climate of inter-Korean and DPRK-US cooperation, Australia and North Korea resumed diplomatic relations. However, the resurgent nuclear crisis and the drug-smuggling incident in Victoria proved to be hard tests for this shaky relationship. (See the full text here…)

The absence of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, at celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the country’s founding triggered a frenzy of speculation. There were suggestions that he had been incapacitated by a stroke – the conclusion now known to have been reached by South Korea’s intelligence service – that he had died, or even that he had been dead for years, his part played by body doubles.

Some say the speculation was an overreaction, but others counter that – whether or not Mr Kim recovers from his present ill health – one day he will die or become permanently incapacitated. They say it is no bad thing to begin addressing questions of his succession, and how the world will respond to his demise.

For Leonid Petrov, North Korea historian at Australian National University, this tug of war over reforms is key to how North Koreans will respond to the demise of Kim Jong-il. He says the population was badly traumatised by the death of Kim Il-sung – partly because of the personality cult which surrounded him, but partly also because it heralded a period of intense isolation and impoverishment in which more than a million people may have died.

Dr Petrov suggests any internal candidate able to preserve short-term stability would probably be more conservative than Kim Jong-il. But he warns against any such candidate attempting to roll back the economic reforms that have allowed North Koreans a little more room to make an independent living. Small protests have been reported in areas where local officials have attempted to rein in private trading – and such protests could snowball. That could be a central factor in how durable any successor regime proves to be.

It is, of course, difficult to assess what preparations have been made in Washington, Beijing and Seoul for a succession crisis in North Korea, because governments do not often reveal details of their contingency planning. But the picture painted by analysts is a gloomy one. While South Korea is certain to have spent decades planning for this eventuality, Dr Petrov points out that they face the serious problems of a lack of a plausible opposition to the North Korean regime and no convincing candidate for leader either inside or outside the country. (See the full text here…)